Network News

Get the Morning Fix and the new Afternoon Fix delivered to your inbox or mobile device for easy access to the top political stories of the day. All you need is one click to get Morning Fix and Afternoon Fix!

The Case Against Caroline Kennedy

Yesterday we made the case for why Caroline Kennedy should be Gov. David Paterson's pick for the Senate seat being vacated early next year by Hillary Rodham Clinton. Today, we tackle the opposite argument. (And, make sure to read legendary New York political columnist Fred Dicker's own case against Kennedy.)

Who Is She (Really)?

For most Americans, the lasting image they have of Caroline Kennedy is as a child at her father's funeral. She has purposely avoided the limelight since those early, tragic days of her life and, as a result, there is VERY little known about her adult life beyond the fact that she is part of American political royalty.

While that profile is plenty powerful for many aspects of public life (as an endorser and veep vetter for President-elect Barack Obama, for example), it isn't enough to get her elected and re-elected to a Senate seat -- especially in the rough and tumble world of New York politics.

Kennedy would necessarily be subjected to a much more thorough examination of her life -- her finances, the boards on which she sits, her personal life -- than she has ever had to submit to before.

What might that close look turn up? Who knows? But, the very fact that she has never been vetted for anything -- in part the result of her iconic status as a member of Camelot -- represents a major risk for Paterson as well as the national Democratic party.

City-Centric

Like every state with one major city and lots of suburban and rural areas, most New Yorkers who don't live in "The City" have a healthy disrespect for those who do. (Yes, we know it's hard to believe, but it's true.)

That's a MAJOR problem for Kennedy who is a creature of New York City and has been for the majority of her adult life.

New Yorkers do want a senator of stature (in the mold of Robert F. Kennedy, Jacob Javits and Clinton) but they also want to feel as though that person has some level of interest and concern about their lives -- whether they live on the Upper East Side or Upstate.

That is why Clinton embarked on an extended listening tour -- concentrated on the Upstate area -- as she mulled a bid in 2000. She understood that the Clinton name would get people to come take a look, but that the way to close the deal with voters was to demonstrate a working knowledge of all of the issues in the state, not just those particular to the Big Apple.

In Kennedy's first foray Upstate, she was asked "Have you ever been to Syracuse before?" She didn't respond. Uh oh.

Commitment to Campaign?

For anyone who has paid any attention to Kennedy's life, her decision to actively seek a Senate seat seems entirely out of character. She is someone who has intentionally tried to avoid the limelight throughout her adult life and, the relatively few times in which the spotlight has been directly on her, she has seemed awkward and uncomfortable.

Is it possible the campaign of Obama and her involvement in it has fundamentally changed Kennedy in a meaningful way? Absolutely. But, typically people don't change that much -- especially once they reach Kennedy's age (51).

Given all of that, a number of Democratic strategists have privately wondered whether she really understands what will be expected of her as a candidate if and when she wins the appointment.

Kennedy will have to run for the final two years of Clinton's term in a 2010 special election and would likely be under considerable pressure, if she wins that race, to run for a full six-year term in 2012. That means a (somewhat) unending string of campaign stops throughout the state for the next three years, not to mention a slew of fundraisers to collect the $40 million or more she would likely need to win the seat against a top-tier challenger like former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

On a separate but related note, what happens if Kennedy is more than willing to campaign but is an uninspiring candidate on the stump? Her appearances on behalf of Obama were less than inspirational and she will be forced to improve under the incredibly harsh glare of the New York and national media. As one senior party strategist put it: "Campaign skill isn't inherited -- and let's be honest, her speeches in 2008 weren't exactly barn burners."

Paterson's Problem

It's easy to forget amid the hubbub surrounding Kennedy's decision to actively seek the appointment that the decision ultimately lies in the hands of just one person: Paterson.

And, Paterson has been decidedly non-committal about Kennedy -- suggesting that he will treat her just like all of the other candidates being considered for the job. (Some within the party suggest that the fact that Paterson has not already named Kennedy is a sign of trouble for her -- the longer she hangs out there, they argue, the more the excitement wears off and the less necessary it becomes for Paterson to pick her.)

Paterson, remember, is set to run for a full term in his own right in 2010 after stepping into the top job following the resignation of Gov. Elliot Spitzer. And, as New York-based consultant Hank Sheinkopf notes in a must-read piece for cnn.com, whoever Paterson picks will be running on that same ballot with him in two years time.

Writes Sheinkopf:

"[Paterson] needs someone who can help him win, and he needs someone who can win. He and the senator he chooses will both face the voters together. With that in mind, is Caroline Kennedy the correct choice....The simple fact is that if the governor passes on other options -- candidates, many of whom serve in Congress and have earned their right to represent New York -- then he does so at his own risk."

Kennedy doesn't help Paterson with any particular constituency -- perhaps women? maybe Catholics? -- and, given her high profile campaign for the seat, picking her has the potential to make Paterson appear weak. In a state known for its cutthroat politics, any sign of weakness from Paterson will be picked up on and exploited by his opponents. Why risk it?

A Dynasty Debacle

The last eight years have been tough for the defenders of political dynasties. Large majorities of American disapprove of the job that President George W. Bush has done and those ratings have led to quite a bit of collateral damage including, we would argue, a part of the reason that voters rejected Clinton's own bid for president.

The idea that Kennedy should win the appointment simply because she is a Kennedy, which, like it or not, is the essence of the argument being forwarded, won't sit well with lots of voters who believe that dynastic politics got us into the trouble we currently find ourselves in. (On a related note, the current revulsion toward political dynasties could also impact the candidacy of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush if he decides to run for the Senate in 2010.)

Kennedy obviously can't (and won't) distance herself from her famous last name. But, with the success of Obama's anti-dynastic campaign, is there really an appetite for another Kennedy in the Senate?

Eureka I just found the Democrats a real wonderful totally unqualified pretty boy male for the Vacant US Senate Seat In New York and I'm sure Mad Madame Speaker Nutty
Nancy Pelosi will approve as well of having
New York Democrat Gov Paterson name San Francisco Democrat Mayor Greasy Hair Gavin
Newsome named as the New US Senator from
New York instead of her prodigy Gavin going down to defeat in his run for Gov.of
California. And Caroline can go back to hosting society tea parties around the world,that she much more qualified doing.

There is no problem regarding whether or not someone is related to someone else in holding public office. It's not like being the relative of a corporate official who can give a title and place you in a high paying position for life. If you are an elected official, you are there because you were elected. Even if you were first appointed like many in congress have been, you still must be elected to stay there. I don't think it is fair to compare Caroline Kennedy to Sarah Palin. I think the media is unfair regarding their coverage of women. I think Sarah Palin was not ready to be president but was as capable of being senator as any senator in congress during their first term. Hillary Clinton had all of the advantages when she ran for senator of New York. She wasn't even a New Yorker. She got a sympathy vote from all of the women who felt she had been betrayed. I agree that Hillary was a good snator because she is smart. Caroline is just as smart. As far as 18,000,000 cracks in the glass cieling, Hillary did not put them there. Many of us were cracking that ceiling long before Hillary arrived on the scene. She was not the first woman in congress, nor the first woman to be a senator and not even the first woman to run for the presidency. She had not held an elected office prior to being elected Senator of New York. Why have we changed the rules? All of those women who came before her cracked the ceiling. 18,000,000 of us expected her to go through. We did not expect that her best would be undermined by those men closest to her. I think the men are playing the same game with Caroline. Hillary seams not supporting caroline even though she seams the most qualified. The media will try to pull her apart like they did Palin. It is not important to me that Palin did a photo op in front of a turkey farm processer, it was interesting that the media didn't know how their thanksgiving turkey was killed. On Morning Joe today, Mika questioned Caroline's lack of agressive behavior and compared her to Palin whom Mika suddenly admired. Palin is a hunter. Caroline is a Solialite. Each can bring the turkey to the table on thanksgiving so what do you want, the turkey dinner or would you prefer to have a guy steal one for you. Don't sweat the small stuff. By the way Mika, you are usually more intelligent than you were this morning. You sounded like Joe and Pat, They were not winners, remember. Neither can get this new diversity right. Maybe you should ask them how they get the turkey to the table.

I think she should get the job. I like her demeanor. She seems humble and perhaps a little backwards. Nothing wrong with that. After all herlife was a series of stunning tragedies. No wonder she wanted to be a professional hermit.
If Ms Pelosi and Mr Carter[the first to hire Madison Ave Handlers for a peanut farmer] can get where they are, surely CK can.
Remember this-no one goes to the Congress or the presidency with experience. A true learning curve.

Caroline Kennedy is not Hillary Clinton, Caroline is an elitist with a agenda, and that is to humilate the Clintons. Her desire to become a Senator from NY, is based on the fact that she is entitled.

I was a strong Democrat from the state of Texas, until Obama came into the scene. I did not appreciate him, getting preferential treatment by the media, and then to have Caroline "lost child" Kennedy endorse the slime, and to compare him to her father. Maria Shriver is just as nuts as her cousin. I can remember when the Kennedy name meant public service in government, Caroline is a misguided rich Manhattan socialite, whose only public service was raising 65 million for the public schools, hell, Joan Kennedy could have raised that amount also as long the Kennedy name is used. Caroline stay in your penthouse, raise your kids to stay off drugs, attend museum parties, stay away from the senate, you have disgraced the Kennedy brand by endorsing Obama, don't do any more damage by trying to legislate.

Selecting Caroline Kennedy for the senate position is like me having a job interview with the president of the company, and when asked what job I want I say I want to be president of this company.
You don't start off at the top, you start off at the bottom, get experience and move up the ladder. I don't care what your name is.
Caroline doesn't across as someone who really likes being in the lime light. I don't see any enthusiasm from her.
No, I think she needs to do what she has been doing, and that is a stay at home Mom.

Caroline is out of the question. I find it appauling that she is actively persuing the appointment knowing full well she has no qualifications. A blatent, sycopanthic attempt to cash in on her family name. Go back to peddling books and attending art gallery openings, would you? These are serious times for serious thinkers, and that lets you out.

Having registered my objections and reservations over Ms. Kennedy, what does it say about me that I would be very intrueged over the appointment of John Jr., should he be alive today?

The governors Mansion in Sacramento is being circled by angry mobs wielding pitchforks and torches so Ahnold might want the position. I heard somewhere he always wanted to be a "Say-nah-tor". He even has "political experience", just ask the angry mobs. I'm sure he'll promise to be the good Senatator from T 2 and T 3, and not some Cyborg legislator intent on the destruction of mankind, like in the original.
Pee Wee Herman is most definitely available, that would give Larry Craig someone to talk too.
Hey, you know, there are millions of unemployed workers in New York, why don't you give it to one of them? Jose the Dry Waller or Mbini the dish washer? I mean like Blago said, this thing is golden. We could take a bum off the streets and put them in the Senate, with a salary that will keep them awash in gin at least until the special election, so why, again, is Americas Princes going to be handed a Senate seat to dangle from her charm bracelet?
At least Hillary used New York as a stepping stone, never mind the high heel print in y'alls forehead. Caroline isn't even planning a tawdry tryst to advance her political horizons, she just thinks it'd be nice to be Senator because, well, she's a little bored. She needs some "busy work".
Personally, I hope he picks Mbini the Dishwasher, but of course, that would be ridiculous so I'm pulling for Pee Wee...no pun intended...

NOW the story is that Valerie Jarrett had telephone conversations with the union leaders about Blago's future jobs.

First, they claim that the discussion centered on Blago's desire to have a cabinet position to be ridiculous.

Then, they claim that they never spoke about Blago getting a job with the union. NOW with Valerie Jarrett so concerned with the transition and being so busy, WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD SHE BE ON THE TELEPHONE WITH UNION LEADERS TALKING ABOUT BLAGO IF IT WASN'T TO ARRANGE SOMETHING ???

It certainly is plausible that she was seeking to put out feelers to see if she could arrange something for Blago.

NOW if Obama's team could trade off what they had - and get the union to give Blago something - and that worked out as an exchange - but Obama's people really weren't giving anything directly - it was the union giving something - then what is that all about??? CLEARLY VALERIE WAS TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING HERE - CLEARLY SHE WOULD NOT BE MAKING ANY PHONE CALLS WITHOUT OBAMA KNOWIN ABOUT IT. CLEARLY THERE IS A PROBLEM.

Hysterical reaction of NYT inventing Parisian
letter repudiating Caroline aka evil intent to supress the advanages of the french education she brings to the senator's seat.instead of celebrating the compelling asset + snapshot the positive better to corrode a charm
into a bitter liability, a la rove.
rien new.

With all due respect to the state of New York I have to say as a resident of the Distric of Columbia I really could care less whether Ms. Kennedy becomes a senator and I'm not certain I understand why the rest of the country should care. Now when the talks turns to all of the citizen of the US being represented in Congress call me. I've got no voting representation in the national government so I'd be thrilled to talk about that but as far as Ms. Kennedy and New York, this is a matter for them to hash out.

Chris, there's one point I have to disagree with, and it's this: "For most Americans, the lasting image they have of Caroline Kennedy is as a child at her father's funeral." That was over 45 years ago, and most living Americans hadn't yet been born. As a rough analogy, it would be like me getting misty-eyed because I had seen a picture of Calvin Coolidge's daughter at his funeral. In other words, I can't imagine having such an emotion, and I can't imagine most voters today feeling much of anything about Caroline. This is about money, celbrity and dynasty, and nothing beside.

Some have compared Andrew Cuomo as a dynastic candidate like Caroline Kennedy. There is a significant difference: Andrew Cuomo has been engaged in New York and federal politics 20 or so years. In addition to serving as New York's attorney general, he managed his father's statewide campaigns and served at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development during the Clinton administration. Yes, Andrew Cuomo can be brash, but his record of government service sits better with me than Caroline Kennedy's lack of track record. Cuomo has actually done the work needed to earn an appointment of this sort, as have numerous New Yorkers. It would be nice to see Governor Paterson appoint on merit rather than on simple name recognition-- and Cuomo, whatever his flaws, trumps Ms. Kennedy on merit and experience.

To be adequate is human and you can become a superstar with it!
To be limited is human and you can find yourself in something like an Oscar Wilde play being considered by swooping troops of Lady Bracknalls!

I am surprised that The Fix didn't discuss the anti-democratic aspects of choosing a political novice primarily on the basis of family ties and wealth. I admire Caroline Kennedy and feel that she might make a competent Senator, but it bothers me tremendously that an appointment of this sort would be based on dynastic privilege rather than merit. If, on the other hand, Kennedy ran for the seat and won it-- as her father, uncles and cousins have done--I'd have tremendous respect for her.

"For anyone who has paid any attention to Kennedy's life, her decision to actively seek a Senate seat seems entirely out of character. She is someone who has intentionally tried to avoid the limelight throughout her adult life"

Therein lies a mystery. Methinks the Ted Kennedy endorsement of Obama elicited the hiring of Caroline by Obama which, he having won the JFK office, stoked her Senate dream.

The Fix has done an excellent analysis of this curious situation, I can't imagine how it could have been done more clearly.

Chris left out what is possibly the most glaring deficiency in Kennedy's candidacy: no indication of an ability to actually do politics.

By "do politics," I mean engaging in the constant give and take, building and using contacts with other Democrats and those across the aisle, and making the tactical choices necessary to move and promote legislation. After all, that's what people in Congress do just about all the time. That's what they're elected to do.

And that's not to say that Kennedy couldn't do those things. Perhaps she would be great at it. There are those who have never served in a legislature before who turn out to be pretty good at these tasks. But without a track record, we simply don't know. And if we're looking purely at qualifications, that puts her at a disadvantage to those who have had prior government positions.

King of zouk, get your lawyer and get ready to sue because the republican party is a thing of the past. A third party will rule before they do because the people will never forget "POLICIES AND CORRUPTION OF THE BUSH ADM."

I really don't think the people of New York are dumb enough to vote for Rugy G. after all we all know what a no good bum he is. His own family don't even claim him but then again that fact alone wood make him a good republican.

I am completely against Mr. Patterson choosing Caroline Kennedy for this seat. She has done nothing to deserve it. She has shown no interest in politics or in the welfare of the state of New York. She's a New York City "High Society" woman who is good at fund raising. A lot of women are good at that. Let Patterson appoint someone who has put in the time, knows the issues of New York State, and can win the election for the seat in 2010.

If you are writing about New York you should know something about the state's electoral history. Jack Javits was a LIBERAL REPUBLICAN Senator when that term was not an oxymoron. It was a time when New York was not a Navy Blue Sate the way it is today. The two Democratic Senators that you mentioned, Robert Kennedy (who I voted for) was a one term Senator who was looking for a platform for a future run as a potention Presidental candidate. To be a Senator or Governor from a large state like NY put you in that category. Mrs Clinton who I also voted for was also in the mode of Robert Kennedy. Both were good Senators. But, the greatest Democratic Senator in the 2nd half of the 20th century from NY was DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN. He was the rarest of all, an intellectual and a politican. A writer of many books that he wrote, not some assistant, about the nature of people in the world we live in, a sociologist, served in several administrations, was US Representative to the UN. He served the people of New York for 4 terms and was the Chairman of the A[ppropiations Committee among others in the Senate. Every once in a while he would send a small brochure to the people of NY and I always learned something knew when reading the newsletter. It wasn't filled with the usual what a great public servant he was , but a teacher about public policy. He always fought for the working men & women of the US & for better educational opportunies for these same people. In short he was someone who mattered, who changed people's lives.
If Mrs Moynihan, who ran ever one of Pat's campaigns and was the sharing partner in a great career, endorsed Carolyn Kennedy that's good enough for me.

Let's MAKE CLEAR THAT EVEN THOUGH BLAGO HAD THE SENATE SEAT UP FOR SALE OBAMA WAS SUBMITTING VALERIE JARRETT'S NAME BUT DID NOT KNOW THAT THE SEAT WAS FOR SALE - OBAMA WAS NEVER AWARE THAT BLAGO WANTED ANYTHING -

- NO OFFER WAS MADE TO BLAGO

- THERE WERE NO DISCUSSIONS ABOUT AN OFFER

- THERE WERE NO INDICATIONS MADE THAT OBAMA WOULD MAKE A DEAL WITH BLAGO

- VALERIE JARRETT KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT THIS EVEN THOUGH SHE WAS CALLING THE UNION OFFICIALS WHO BLAGO WANTED A JOB FROM

- EVEN THOUGH MICHELE OBAMA RECEIVED A JOB AT TREEHOUSE AND TRIPLED HER SALARY AFTER OBAMA BECAME SENATOR, THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT BLAGO'S WIFE WAS BEING CONSIDERED FOR ANYTHING BY OBAMA'S TEAM

IT TOOK WEEKS AND WEEKS FOR THE OBAMA TEAM TO WRITE A REPORT ABOUT NOTHING.

I am so RELIEVED that the Obama transition team's investigation of ITSELF has turned up NOTHING and exonerated Obama and Rahm and Valerie Jarrett - because while Blago was negotiation with EVERYONE ELSE in a BIDDING WAR for the Senate seat which apparently went up to ONE MILLION DOLLARS, it is clear that the Obama people DID NOT SUBMIT AN OFFER OR NEGOTIATE AT ALL.

Caroline Kennedy is a socialite. She has done nothing in public life to merit being appointed to the NY Senate seat that HRC will soon vacate. CK has no public record to examine. There are many qualified people in NY who have served in the public realm and could admirably serve the state. CK is just trading on her name. Like all the Kennedys, she thinks she should get whatever she wants. Let her run a campaign in 2010 and tell NYS residents what her agenda for the state is. As a NYS resident, I'd like to know.

I think Kennedy familie's darling daughter, Caroline Kennedy aspiring the nation. Give her a job as a Senatorial post of New York. She is well educated person with wonderful family value.

We should remember that Abraham Lincoln, arguably the greatest president in United States history, had less experience in government than president-elect Barack Obama has. But he had compassion, intellect, a commitment to be ethtical and the courage to make decisions that made sence to him. Obama certainly has the intellect, compassion and ethics that are neeed in the White House.

Howeve, this daling daughter, Caroline Kennedy a struggle of family trees of political dynasties.She has all the good quality.

Some people seem to forget that unqualified Senators/legislators are less likely to do much damage (unlike unqualified Presidents/executives). It's the politicians who have mastered the system (i.e. how to manipulate and corrupt it) that worry me. Use Caroline to keep one of them out.

P.S. Speaking of dynasties, I find it amazing that 2008 was the first Republican ticket since 1972 NOT to include a Bush or a Dole.

Campaign Diaries just released its first Senate rankings, with detailed analysis of every single race of the 2010 cycle. Democrats are once again in a great position to score major gains, and Republicans are likely to play defense for the third cycle in a row: http://campaigndiaries.com/2008/12/23/first-senate-rankings/

I believe Caroline K. ran the Smithsonian for years.
Also, nothing happens in the Kennedy family, with all the Kennedy libraries, foundations, centers, etc. that doesn't make it to her door step for approval.

caribis - You left out the fact that Mark Dayton served as Attorney General of Minnesota. Like him or not, he doesn't fit the mold you described (no public service prior to the Senate). He had won statewide office prior to election (as well as having run in the past against Durenberger).

I'm a native of Syracuse, son of Brooklynites. No more Manhattan dynasties, please. If Gov. Paterson wants to show a real "profile in courage," let him appoint someone who's not from a famous family, but instead someone who is qualified to represent New York State on the issues in the Senate. And this native upstater would prefer it be someone whose roots are significantly north of NYC. Caroline Kennedy is a symbol of Camelot, and I'm sick of symbols.

Thanks for your insights. Re your statement "But, typically people don't change that much -- especially once they reach Kennedy's age (51)." My experience is that anyone, regardless of age, can change if they are willing to do so. I don't pretend to have any insights into Ms. Kennedy's state of mind, but I find your statement pretty sweeping. Perhaps she has set aside her need for privacy in order to support societal change at a governmental level.

I am sure there are dozens of similar examples, but Mark Dayton comes to mind as to why Ms. Kennedy should be careful about what she wishes for. Mark Dayton was a one term US Senator from MN. Before that his achievement of note was being an heir to the local department store fortune (the one that created a chain of discount stores called Target.) He ran, he won, he served one term. I guess it wasn't for him. Maybe it will be for Ms. Kennedy, but no doubt the Democratic strategists are more worried about the Dayton example.

Why would Caroline Kennedy want to put herself in the garbage compacter that is politics today? She's educated; she's well off; she's well connected; she can call any world leader and they will take her call; she can back any cause she desires and can make a difference;

Nobody calls her names or questions her intelligence, experience or motives..
until now.

I like Caroline Kennedy and think she's an intelligent and diligent woman. I think she would be a fine senator. I think that Governor Patterson has to consider her seriously. If nothing else, her promise to run in 2012 means that the incumbent (Andrew Cuomo, for instance) will have a big primary fight on his hands.

In following this story, I have seen a lot of knee-jerk reactions. Why the focus on the appointment of Kennedy as dynastic when the most oft-mentioned alternative is the son of a New York governor?

Also, I wonder if the office of attorney general is a good proving ground for other elected office. The crafting of legislation, particularly the constant negotiation, involves an entirely different skill set than the prosecution of state cases. Look at Eliot Spitzer, who was having trouble, to say the least, adapting to executive office. In that light, I do not think that Caroline Kennedy's experience compares as badly to Cuomo's as others suggest.

Vice President-elect Joe Biden said Tuesday that a report due to be released imminently will show "no inappropriate contact" between President-elect Barack Obama's staff and embattled Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

It has now morphed from "no contact" to "no inappropriate contact". I need to go get my Liberal dictionary to see what "innappropriate " means. I am still puzzled by the word "is" you see.

you see it is entirely appropriate to cheat and steal if you are a Lib, as long as you are lining your own pocket. they do it all the time and no one cares. what else would you conclude? see for example - Reid, Pelosi, Clinton, Blago, Wrangle, Moran, Jefferson, Obama, Dodd, Frank, etc.

Frankly, while I like and admire Caroline Kennedy insofar as it is possible to know her from her public appearances, I agree that she seems to be doing this for someone else (Uncle Ted? The memory of her many dead and famous relatives, whether her own father, her uncle, or even her brother, who likely would have run for something had he lived). I keep wondering what her mother would have to say about this - probably a lot. But regardless, it is possible for her to become a good senator - she's smart, connected, and apparently diligent. She has more of a public profile than any of the other interested candidates with the exception of Andrew Cuomo, who also has a recognizable name. We need someone of some recognition and stature going forward - New York needs all the help it can get in this difficult time.

But if we're going dynastic, here, I would just as soon see Chelsea Clinton run. She's young, amazingly together and unquestionably bright if not brilliant. She also proved to be a more than able spokesperson for her mother's presidential run - by the end of the primary, she was a formidable force in her own right. She has presence and flair, and she's a good speaker - funny and ironic when necessary, stays on message and knows how to bring in normal life. She's also been with her mother a lot, has lived in NY longer than her parents at this point, and seems to be a real New Yorker, as much as anything or anyone else who's come to New York as a young adult. She may have grown up in Arkansas and the White House, but after leaving college, she came to New York, as legions of young people do. Most of us in "the City" have come from somewhere else - that's the great appeal of New York.

She'd have clout instantly - and the Clinton brand in New York is more visible and more recent than the Kennedys, at this point.

As a young professional working for McKinsey, helping companies solve problems, Chelsea Clinton is also more connected to the kinds of things that ordinary people are dealing with. She's had an exposure to the business world and to working through a collaborative process to solve problems that would be instantly transferable as a Senator.

I don't think it should be a given that this prize goes to Caroline Kennedy. As you rightly point out, it needs to feel as though she's earened it, and that's just not there. Her shyness and reluctance to speak out directly and forcefully up to now is an impediment in wanting to take her seriously now as a senatorial selection.

Evidently king_of_zouk lacks basic critical reading skills: "It appears that Obama's incoming Chief-of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel, had direct talks with Illinois Gov. on filling Obama's senate seat. Hold the phone. Didn't Obama tells us unequivocally, '... what I’m absolutely certain about is that our office had no involvement in any deal-making around my Senate seat. That I’m absolutely certain of.' This statement requires a willing suspension of common sense and political realities.... Someone is lying. Of course, calling someone a liar, (unless he's George Bush) is not allowed in the 'polite society', unless of course, the lable refers to a conservative." Discussions between Emanuel and Blagoyevich simply so not equate involvement in deal-making. Wouldn't one expect a senator vacating his seat to have some discussions with the governor responsible for choosing the replacement? Or is the right desperate to associate Obama with something, anything, that can tarnish him?

Another headline jumps out at me. It appears that Obama's incoming Chief-of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel, had direct talks with Illinois Gov. on filling Obama's senate seat. Hold the phone. Didn't Obama tells us unequivocally,
".. what I’m absolutely certain about is that our office had no involvement in any deal-making around my Senate seat. That I’m absolutely certain of."

This statement requires a willing suspension of common sense and political realities. As Rick Moran points out: "We already know that at least two top advisors (Advisors “A” and “B” in the taped transcripts released in the criminal complaint against Blagojevich) had discussions with Blagojevich and his people about the Senate seat." And the Chicago Times reports that Emmanuel had several discussions with Blago.

Someone is lying. Of course, calling someone a liar, (unless he's George Bush) is not allowed in the 'polite society', unless of course, the lable refers to a conservative.

Random House dictionary defines lie as "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive." Technically, this makes Obama a liar.

Kennedy, who has asked Governor David Paterson to appoint her to succeed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton — and who helped oversee the vetting process for Obama's possible running mates — is declining to provide a variety of basic data, including companies she has a stake in and whether she has ever been charged with a crime.

Kennedy declined on Monday to reply to those and other questions posed by The New York Times about any potential ethical, legal and financial entanglements. Through a spokesman, she said she would not disclose that kind of information unless and until she becomes a senator.

The fact that sales at Starbucks are going down, while sales at McDonald’s are going up, shows that people are adjusting to economic adversity by cutting back their spending. Only in Congress do people adjust to economic adversity and growing deficits by spending more money.

Just a brief point to those derisively calling Ms. Kennedy "Princess"... should we start calling George W. Bush, "Junior"?

After all, what's good for the goose...

I think the most elegant solution would be to actually appoint a caretaker Senator and have the prospective candidates, including Ms. Kennedy, duke it out in 2010. However, if the Republican Party has a strong candidate, say a Giuliani cruise to victory in their primary, Mrs. Clinton's seat could go to the Republicans.

me too...
i would rather see Caroline K in there
than some person whom
1) will troll dormitories for underage sex
2) will fraud people in their "other" business lives
3) will stash 90,000 in their freezers

Kennedy is likely to be a strong advocate for the Obama legislative agenda so therefore it's surprising to see so many Democrats opposed to her. If you are a liberal/progressive Democrat, she is pretty much the ideal choice. She is more likely to be a pro-Obama vote in the Senate than almost any other possible candidate.

Those New Yorkers opposing her candidacy, especially based on concern about her ability to advance and support New York's interests should really think twice. There is no other prospective candidate who is as close to Obama as is Kennedy. Kennedy may have a direct line to the White House. None of the other prospective candidates can say that. Therefore, if an issue arises that deeply impacts New York (state or city), Kennedy is probably more likely to have success in advancing NY interests than any other possible candidate.

I'd much rather see Caroline Kennedy in the Senate than some Congressional minor-leaguer who opposed Obama's candidacy for the Democratic nomination. We don't need more Democrats who opposed Obama in office.

In the new Q-poll, 33% of voters pick Kennedy, 29% Cuomo, and the next person only 4%; and Democrats say Kennedy 41% over Cuomo’s 27%. Will Paterson hurt himself with Catholics and Obama supporters if he does not pick Caroline?

The past 8 years of republican "rule" has spelled disaster. Look at the mess we are in folks!!!!
Each Republican administration screws things up---then Dems have to come in and have to clean it up.
Republicans have always been known for "foreign affairs". Some foreign affairs Baby Bush---3 wars.
Democrats are known for "domestic affairs".
Take care of our house first, then foreign houses.

This is everything Obama was not supposed to be - he was supposed to be different; to not be politics as usual. So what happens? Caroline and Teddy come out early for Obama, and the payoff is the senate seat from NY; Grandpa Joe would be proud. Biden last night on Larry King seemed to look like the fix was already in. It's simply appalling.

What I think Patterson should do? Appoint an elder statesman to fill out the Hillary term - who would pledge not to run in 2010; then let ALL the hopefuls, Caroline if she still wants it the way she's supposed to get it, Andy Cuomo, Carolyn Maloney - everybody goes at it fair and square; the idea that giving somebody the gift of incumbency for 2010 doesn't matter is simply baloney. My choice to finish the Clinton term - again, with the commitment of not running for election in 2010 - would be Mario Cuomo - he'd represent the state well, and then leave the stage; I don't think it's an advantage for Andrew Cuomo, he would still have to make his case - but whoever it is, the idea is by selecting an elder statesman just for the Clinton term is NY is represented fairly, without giving ANYBODY an unfair advantage -

that is the democratic way, that would be the "change" way - that would not be politics as usual.

If Princess Kennedy gets the gig, Chelsea should challenge her for the nomination in 2010. (Chelsea will be 30 in Feb 2010). That way Chelsea can win the seat on her own and it can be kept in the correct (Clinton) dynasty.

As an upstater, I would like to point out that New Yorkers who live upstate have a healthy disrespect for those that live in "the city" also. Because of a wide dispairity of interest between the two, many believe that New York should actually be partitioned into upstate/downstate. Maybe one senator from each area is in order!

I will give you three examples of how bad the democratic party is: take all three senatorial sucessions we are witnessing.

In Illinois, the corruption and graft of the democratic party has been laid bare.

In Delaware, the nepotism and downright ugly politics of the internal democratic party is a stark example - if Illinois was not so bad, Delaware would be taking the cake.

In New York, the fight over Caroline has shown how corrupt and pathetic the internal workings of the democratic party is.

In New Jersey, a high-level Assemblyman, who recently resigned, was finally indicted on child porn charges - in addition to the multitude of democratic party officials indicted this year.

OK Sorry that is four examples of ugly the democratic party is.

Do you really want your country run this way???

The latte liberals have this fantasy that the democratic party officials are out helping the poor every day.

The democratic party forgets about the poor, forgets about the poor neighborhoods, the day after every election.

The democratic party is the biggest FRAUD in the history of the nation - and Obama has won an election based on offering the country a candy-land notion of post-partisan, post-racial transparent government which he has NO intention of putting in place.

The Fix writes
"Some within the party suggest that the fact that Paterson has not already named Kennedy is a sign of trouble for her -- the longer she hangs out there, they argue, the more the excitement wears off and the less necessary it becomes for Paterson to pick her."

Uh, is the seat vacant? Perhaps Gov Paterson feels it would be premature to fill a vacancy that does not yet exist...

Money and a name get you in the door. So far she has not been impressive even with all the handlers. She reminds me of another Kennedy, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend.

New York needs a fighter. Robert Kennedy was a fighter, Hillary Clinton was a fighter. Both had lived a public life before going for the Senate seat and both had to go before the voters to win.

Caroline Kennedy has spent a lifetime staying out of the public eye, never taking a public position, surrounded by the elite rich of NY, and not even bothering to vote.

As a Democrat she won't even agree to support the Democratic candidate for Mayor next year.

The ability to get to Obama is shared by many New Yorkers who raised money for him. Saying that is a reason to annoint Caroline Kennedy is crazy. She doesn't know her way around Congress and that is what New Yorkers need now. Someone who can get the job done. I recently heard someone say don't worry she will hire good staff as if to say who cares if she doesn't know anything. How sad we have come to that in selecting a Senator.

I would suggest that Governor Patterson select someone who is prominent and will do a great job for New Yorkers for two years, someone who can get the same access as Caroline but who knows the issues and has demonstrated that. But that someone could agree not to run in 2010 and let the games begin. Let's see if Caroline Kennedy still wants the seat if she has to run in a primary. If she does and wins thats great then she deserves it. But I doubt we will see her on the stump in Utica and Buffalo. It is not the same as being on Park Avenue and calling your rich friends to donate money to the schools.

New Yorkers, and I spent most of my life in NY should stand up and tell the Governor no. She won't be a help to you in 2010. The name has as much baggage as promise and the Republicans would like nothing so much as beating a Kennedy in NY. The money will flow.

New York will be fortuntate to have Mrs. Kennedy as a temporary Senator. The neocons are going nuts, are full guns into yet another one of their typical smear campaigns that they enjoy so much. Inspired by the likes of hate mongers Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Rupert Fox "news" Murdoch, they childishly pander to the very emotional, hate filled right wing voters in America. As with the last election, to heck with them..Go Kennedy!

While Caroline Kennedy may be a really nice person, and she's probably very smart and giving of her time to charitable organizations, yet having her appointed to the senate seat in NY is a very bad idea.

First, I have heard nothing from her as to what she wants to do with the seat substantively which would warrant her getting the appointment.

Second, I don't know what qualifications she has other than the presumed ability to raise money. This cannot and should not be the primary motivating factor in the appointment.

Third, she hasn't articulated why she should get the appointment above all others. In a state of 19 million people, is there no one more qualified than her?

Fourth, enough with dynasties! Had she actually gone out and run for city council and then worked her way up to mayor or congress it might be a different story, but Kennedy is seeking to be appointed almost exclusively on the basis of her name.

The above factors coupled with her reticence to take questions and the lack of disclosure lead me to be strongly opposed to her appointment.

Pros: She has a famous father and can raise a lot of money. Also, she's a woman.

Cons: Nobody knows anything about her, she doesn't care about anything outside of the city, and she's never campaigned for office or worked hard for anything. Being part of a dynasty may not be an advantage, since political dynasties have gotten a bad reputation.

The cons are far more convincing than the pros. New York can do better than Caroline Kennedy.

Caroline is of my generation. The two Carolines, I remember them so fondly, while I was a kid. Caroline Kennedy and Princess Caroline of Monaco.
They were the wild childs of my generation. The ones we read about in the Enquirer, etc.
Princess Caroline of Monaco had Caroline K. beat as far as partying and all that.
Bit more of a wild child. However, my generation was so enthralled by Caroline and John-John.
Caroline K. has the know-how and savvy to take this position and make it her own.

Everytime Caroline took the stage with Barack, for me, she didn't have to say a damn word. The fact that she was there was good enough for me.

Let's take the leap of faith folks. Like we have with President Elect Obama.
A leap of faith. And welcome Caroline K. back into the fold. It is the fold she knows and has lived.

Doesn't matter . . . New York is well past its best days anyway. Relative to the average state, it is losing population, losing jobs, losing corporate HQ, and now the securities industry is going down the toilet. When it recovers, it won't be in high-tax, anti-businesss NY . . .
The media flinches from reporting this stuff honestly - and the political reasons for it - because the media is still NY-centric, and the road to advancement in the chattering classes still runs through New York City to a large extent . . .

Anyone notice that as the Kennedys have prospered politically over the past half-century, the states they have represented have declined in jobs, growth, and population relative to the rest of the country? Even California, now a minor province of the Kennedy family, is now in decline, thanks to the quality of leadership of privileged liberals like Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, Waxman, and the Kennedyesque anti-business political culture they have helped create. States formerly with Dogpatch images (Tennessee, Georgia) or regarded as reactionary by 'evolved' easterners (Texas, Florida) have been running rings around them, and it's directly due to the Kennedyesque political culture - "privilege for our media/political/inherited wealth elite, and social programs to create dependency for the masses" . . . The wealth-creating middle class that wants to get richer is squeezed out - Ted Kennedy's taxes and regulations have obviously protected the 'haves' of existing wealth from competition from the 'wanna haves' . . . Probably they don't even know how self-serving they are; ruling classes have a way of persuading themselves that what is good for them is good for everyone else . . . Another milestone in the story of the decline of New York . . .

The biggest case against Caroline right now is her refusal to disclose any past records. She was running a pretty savvy and PC political effort until then. Did she - or her PR handlers - honestly beleive that her past was irrelevant in this case?

Princess Caroline's sudden interest in politics does NOT make her a viable candidate. She was too busy to vote in past elections. It's a slap in the face to NY voters. Democracy has reached a sad state when the only requirement for a Senate seat is the last name of "Kennedy." Hope she didn't inherit her father's serial infidelity or her uncle's alcoholism. At least she hasn't killed one of her campaign workers like her Uncle Teddy.

If Caroline had any idea how bad this is making her look and how much damage it is doing to her, she would shut the whole thing down. She is rapidly approaching the point of no return to her private life and private career.

While she is badly unfit for the work, the other Kennedys have come in with a heavy stick. They have complicated the process and now any other Democrat must assume they will have to beat both the Republicans and the Kennedys in 2010 and 2012.

Even I believed that Teddy could have split the difference between his mom (age 101 at death) and dad (mid-70s at death) and live into his 80s or 90s. A brain tumor will take his life much earlier instead, and that threw the Kennedys into a panic. They pushed Caroline out there too early, and she will be lucky to regain her status prior to this debacle.

Whoever is appointed, that person will face serious Republican challengers in 2010 and possibly 2012. Incumbency is not so big a factor in Senate elections. The smartest move now might be to give it to a weak Republican and then let the process sort itself out in a 2010 Democratic and Republican Primaries.

I don't live in NY and I'm not a democrat. That being said, what "qualifications" does it take to be a "Government Official"? We already have an entire list of buffoons - Reed, Pelosi, Dodds, Frank and it looks like Frankken is going to win in Minnesota. I almost forgot about NY other dunderhead, Chuckie....The man has never seen a camera he didn't like.
Bottom line, Caroline Kennedy is as qualified as the above mentioned fools. Good luck NY, you'll need it

Aside from her thinking she can just glide in and be appointed to a political position she has not "paid the dues" to attain, i.e. run a contested race in order for the voters to decide, what's with the funky teeth?

She's ok looking, but the smile is brutal.

Please Caroline, cop a $500 whitening and do yourself a BIG favor.

If she is appointed over a politician that has served, if I were that person overlooked, I'd seek some justice in the courts! Whether it's Cuomo or someone else who has served through the years, after being VOTED into office, they have every right to be outraged, as well as the people of New York State should be.

There seems to be a bandwagon going for Kennedy so I say: Give her the job. She has less than two years to prove that she can do it. As matter of fact, in a year she better be into an election campaign. If she can not do the job, New Yorkers will turn her out in the primary or in the general election. That would be a seat lost to the Democrats but there will be others they can win. With about five guys being appointed this year, there will be many changes in 2010 and Barrack may just regret appointing so many safe Democrats to his administration.

Whatever the initial reservation about Hillary by all accounts she is an and hardworking Senator representing NY. She segued well from the erudite and exceptional Moynihan.

Caroline may well turn out to be just as good, some flowers bloom late, yeah 51 is the new 41. But the most striking concern for Paterson, pointed by the Fix, in my opinion is after the initial novelty wears off, what if she turns out to be uninspiring candidate and voters tune out?

An average intelligent person can do any job well provided s/he has the support structure, but not so in campaigns- you have to have the fire in the belly and in NY's case sharp elbows. That is the 40 million dollar question.

Is she worth the risk for Paterson and Dems, or is she exactly the new type of blood that needs to be infused in our political system that has undergone some tectonic shift with Obama inspired hope?

Whatever the initial reservation about Hillary by all accounts she is an excellent and hardworking Senator representing NY. She segued well from the erudite and exceptional Moynihan.

Caroline may well turn out to be just as good, some flowers bloom late, yeah 51 is the new 41. But the most striking concern for Paterson, pointed by the Fix, in my opinion is after the initial novelty wears off, what if she turns out to be uninspiring candidate and voters tune out?

An average intelligent person can do any job well provided s/he has the support structure, but not so in campaigns- you have to have the fire in the belly and in NY's case sharp elbows. That is the 40 million dollar question.

Is she worth the risk for Paterson and Dems, or is she exactly the new type of blood that needs to be infused in our political system that has undergone some tectonic shift with Obama inspired hope?

What bull. Let me see we have a steroidal actor as the California Governator, before that it was a B movie actor. People seemed to like him. Now we have a sitting president who never did anything successfully in his entire life. In fact he'd never even been to Europe before becoming President. But suddenly you want to raise the flag of qualifications. Jeeze what nonsense. Quit hiding your prejudice about her being born rich and a member of a family that has served greatly. Bunch of windbags.

Whatever the initial reservation about Hillary by all accounts she is an excellent and hardworking Senator representing NY. She segued well from the erudite and exceptional Moynihan.

Caroline may well turn out to be just as good, some flowers bloom late, yeah 41 is the new 41. But the most striking concern for Paterson, pointed by the Fix, in my opinion is after the initial novelty wears off, what if she turns out to be uninspiring candidate and voters tune out?

An average intelligent person can do any job well provided s/he has the support structure, but not so in campaigns- you have to have the fire in the belly and in NY's case sharp elbows. That is the 40 million dollar question.

Is she worth the risk for Paterson and Dems, or is she exactly the new type of blood that needs to be infused in our political system that has undergone some tectonic shift with Obama inspired hope?

Very insightful. You have articulated my own basic concerns while greatly elaborating on them. In particular, I have always been aghast that the Clintons thought having Senator Clinton run for the presidency was good for our democracy. I don't cotton to royalty, political or otherwise. Those who think we must have another Kennedy, Bush, Clinton, Biden, Sununu, Clay, Ford, Paterson, or Udall, etc should pause to recall how long this country stood before they or their ancestors entered American politics.

Have the wisdom and grace to move aside. Let fresh blood and new leadership reinvigorate the melting pot! At the very least, run and get elected to public office instead of being anointed to it based on who you are.

I understand the fact she has raised a lot of money for many great organizations in New York but I am not convinced that is enough. I vote for people who can bring big ideas that work across the board. The money you raise wont do any good without ideas and innovation.

It really is not about Caroline. Who could not love her? It is all about experience.

And we all know that Sarah Palin was a governor like Bill (the philander now the MSM darling) and was crucified by the MSM. So where is the MSM outrage about Caroline?

She is simply unqualified. Oh, she is a mother, so is Sarah (5X). Why has she dropped her last name, Schossenburg (sp) all of a sudden, that she has used for the last twenty or thirty years?

Let's get rid of her now. She is has less experience than her Uncle Ted when he became a Senator at 29. And he of all the Kennedy's is really the worst of the litter. No comparison to JFK/RFK. Now the patriarch, Joseph, was no saint. Read the history about his fascist leanings as Ambassador to GB pre-WWII. Let's get real. Dump Caroline - she is unqualified.